Advanced Science Students’ Understandings on Nature of Science in Finland

Abstract

Majority of NOS studies comprise of determination or assessment studies conducted with ordinary students. In order to gain further understanding on variation in NOS understandings among the students, there should be different research attempts focusing on unconventional students such as academically advanced students. The purpose of this study is to determine epistemological understanding of Finnish academically advanced science students concerning aspects of NOS. The study was a case study (N=39) conducted with qualitative perspective. Questionnaires on the students’ attitude toward science and motivation toward science learning plus a form for the teacher’s ideas and VNOS-C, were used as diagnostic tools and data collection instruments. The study revealed that the majority of the students were found to be naïve in aspects such as “empirical basis of science”, “observation and inference”, “subjectivity of scientists”, “social and cultural embeddedness”, “creativity in science”, “theories and laws” and “tentativeness”.

Keywords

• nature of science, scientific literacy, advanced students, epistemological thinking

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of nature of science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University, Oregon, USA.
2. Blanco, R., & Niaz, M. (1997). Epistemological beliefs of students and teachers about the nature of science: from ‘baconian inductive ascent’ to the ‘irrelevance’ of scientific laws. Instructional Science, 25, 203-231.
3. Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Shipman, H. L. & Letts, W. J. IV. (2000). In R. Millar, J. Leach and J. Osborne (Editors): Improving science education: The contribution of research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
4. Cannon, R.K. & Simpson, R.D. (1985). Relationship among attitude motivation, and achievement of ability grouped, seventh- grade life science students. Science Education, 69, 121-138.
5. Damastes S,. & Wandersee, H.J. (1992). Biological literacy in a college biology classroom. BioScience, 42(1), 63-65.
6. Dogan, N. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112.
7. Goodroom, D. (1979). Creative and logical thinking in adolescents. Research in Science Educatlon, 9, 177-182.
8. Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of preservice science teacher educators’ beliefs about nature of science. Science Teacher Education, 90(6), 1113–1143.

9. Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
10. Khishfe, R & Lederman, N.G. (2006).Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418.
11. Khishfe, R & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8),939–962.
12. Kılıç, K., Sungur, S., Çakıroğlu, J. & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Ninth grade students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Hacettepe University Education Faculty Journal, 28, 127-133.
13. Klymkowsky, M. W., Garvin-Doxas, K. & Zeilik, M. (2003). Bioliteracy and Teaching Efficacy: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists? Cell Biology Education, 2(3), 155-161.
14. Köksal, M, S. & Sormunen, K. (2009). Advanced science students’ understanding on nature of science in Turkey. ESERA 2009 Conference, 31 August- 4 September, Grand Cehavir Hotel and Conference Center, Istanbul, Turkey.
15. Köksal, M.S. (2010). The effect of explicit embedded reflective instruction on nature of science understandings, scientific literacy levels and achievement on cell unit (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Teachnical University, Ankara, Turkey.
16. Köksal, M.S., Cakıroglu, J & Geban, O. (2013).The effect of explicit embeded reflective instruction on nature of science understandings of advanced science students, Journal of Biological Education. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2013.799080
17. Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J. & Séré, M-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: the consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 497-527.
18. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
19. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education. Englewood cliffs (pp.831-880). NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
20. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre-service teachers' understanding and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1, 135-160.
21. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L. & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
22. Liu, S., & Lederman, N (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114-123.
23. McComas, W. F. (1998). The Principle Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. McComas, M. R. (2003) A textbook case of the nature of science: Laws and theories in the science of biology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,1, 141–155.
25. Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students’ conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science & Education, 6, 397-416.
26. Near, J.A. &Martin, B.J. (2007). Expanding course goals beyond disciplinary boundaries: physiology education in an undergraduate course on psychoactive drugs, Advanced Physiology Education, 31, 161–166.
27. OECD/PISA (2003). PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD, Paris.
28. Palmquist, B. & Finley, F. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595-615.
29. Park, S. & Oliver, J.S. (2009). The transition of teachers’ understanding of gifted students into instructional strategies for teaching science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 333-351.
30. Peterson, K. & Mayes, B. (1981) Ideal teacher behavior perceptions of science students: Success, gender, course, School Science and Mathematics, 81(4), 315–321.
31. Project 2061 (2007). Retrived 2017 December 24, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/
32. Sandoval, W. A. & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students. ideas about theories and theory change after a biology enquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392.
33. Schommer, M. & Dunnell, P. A . (1994). A comparison of epistemological beliefs between gifted and non-gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 16(3).
34. TIMSS (2007) International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades, Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J.F., Erberber, E., Preuschoff, C., & Galia, J.). (2008). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College
35. Tsai, C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers’ view changes towards the nature of science by courses of science education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 363-375.
36. Uno, G.E., & Bybee, R.W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy. BioScience, 44(8), 553-557.